investigation into the trump campaign's ties to russia. for now, for us, "hardball" with chris matthews begins right now. eastern promises. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. tonight with an fbi led counterintelligence inquiry under way and two congressional investigations just beginning, there are strong signs out there that president trump has ordered a preemptive strike on those problems of his possible russian connections. we learned last week reince priebus asked the fbi to knock down stories about the reported communications between trump aides and figures in rush that and the "washington post" and axios are reporting the administration's pushback effort went further.

white house enlisted cia director mike pompeo as well as the republican chairs of the house and senate intelligence committees, congressman devin nunes and senator richard burr to counter and discredit stories in calls with reporters. in a press conference today house chairman nunes emphasized multiple times as of now he hasn't seen any evidence connecting the trump campaign to russia. >> we still have not seen any evidence of anyone from the trump campaign or any other campaign for that matter that's communicated with the russian government. mere at the committee we still don't have evidence of them talking to russians. as of right now, the initial inquiries i've made to the appropriate agencies i don't have any evidence. i don't have any evidence that would -- of any phone calls. what i've been told is by many -- by many folks is that there's nothing there. we don't have any evidence right now. the way it sounds like to me is it's been looked into and there's no evidence of anything there. there is no evidence that i've been presented of regular

contact. if you all have american citizens that you know were talking to russian agents, if you want to come to our committee, be a whistleblower, yourself, and bring me the names i'd be interested in having them. >> premature to make connections to russia, here's how the ranking member of that committee, democrat congressman adam schiff responded in a dueling press conference earlier today. >> the committee hasn't reached any conclusion whether the trump campaign colluded with russian officials or russian contacts. nor could we. we have called no witnesses thus far, no documents on any counterintelligence investigation and yet to receive any testimony from the fbi on the investigation of potential links between the trump campaign and russia. so we're not in a position to reach any conclusions about that. >> this comes after the former republican chair of the house oversight committee, congressman darrell issa of california on

friday called for a special prosecutor to lead an independent investigation. >> you cannot have somebody, a friend of mine, jeff sessions, who was on the campaign and who was an appointee. you're going to need to use the special prosecutor's statute in office to take -- not just recuse, you can't give it to your deputy, that's another political appointee. you do have to do that. >> here's how the president reacted today when asked if he'd support the appointment of a special prosecutor. >> do you support a special prosecutor on russia? >> thank you, press. thank you. take care. bye-bye. i haven't called russia in ten years. >> i didn't hear the response. joined right now by democratic senator martin heinrich of new mexico, yesterday called for a subpoena of the president's tax returns. before the watergate investigation, you could say

there was no evidence of a cover-up and turns out there was lots of evidence once you went and looked for it. how do the chairs of the intelligence committees, house and senate, both republicans say there's nothing there and they haven't investigated it yet? what do they mean by there's nothing there? of course there's nothing there. you haven't gotten it yet. your thoughts, senator. >> i think you're exactly right. we have to do an investigation. i think the american people are expecting us to do that. when you step back from this issue, it's really about, you know, the fact that russia had their thumb on the scales of an american election. that's something we should never accept. i don't think the russians do this to help the republicans or democrats. they always do it to help the russians. we should get to the bottom of it. >> what do you think you can find out -- i know you're making a heroic effort to get his tax returns. president keeps saying he's being audited, whatever that cover is, nobody really believes that. as long as he keeps saying i'm being audited, i can't release my returns, how you get them?

>> on the intelligence committee, if we were to subpoena those tax returns, they would not be open to the public. i think this is a fully appropriate way to follow the money and see if there are issues here that are broader than what we know as yet and as you said, until we actually do the work of investigating, we're not going to know what the answer is. >> well, he keeps saying things like his defense is either really broad or very specific. the president. he either says, you know, i didn't talk to intelligence officials per se, although most intelligence people don't call themselves intelligence officials. they're in deeper, some kind of background, undercover. and secondly, he'll say things i've never done business in russia when we know he had the miss universe content over there. paul manafort certainly had dealings in russia and ukraine. we know facts. yet he has these sweeping denials. what do you make of that? >> if you look at the language used oftentimes in the current debate, hear words like infrequent, inconsequential.

i think words mean things. the fact that they're using qualifiers like that makes me want to get to the bottom of this. >> why do you think the white house has gone out there, sean spicer, reince priebus, gone out and talked to the fbi director and cia director, the chairs of the two intelligence committees. asking them to call the press and tell them how there's nothing to it. what do you make of that? why would they do something like that if there's nothing to hide? >> i don't know why they're doing that but i can tell you it's completely inappropriate and the american people expect our intelligence committees to conduct fair and impartial investigations. and as soon as you have collusion between the chairs and the white house trying to spin news stories, or for that matter, selectively leak information while they're condemning leaks on the other hand, i think that's a real problem. >> what do you think about the white house, the way they've been doing this?

spicer, the press secretary, he's got a tough job. we all know that. he's out there telling people i want to see all your phones to make sure -- he's collecting the phones in a big pile and asking people if they'll let him examine the phones to see if they're leaking anything. of course, he says don't leak the fact i'm asking you for your phones to see if you're not leaking then we immediately read about the fact he's collected all the phones. this is -- this is a gang that can't shoot straight even when it comes to cover-up. >> there's -- >> or investigations. what do you make of it? >> there's a little bit of a keystone cops -- >> yeah, i was thinking of that. >> -- aspect to that. that said, there's a lot of blaming the fire alarm instead of dealing with the fire. and i think as a member of the intelligence committee on the senate side, i think we need to get to the bottom of this, get the facts, establish what they are and if necessary, declassify them and share them with the american people so that we can address the root issues and not who's leaking what or when. >> you are great, senator. you're one of the best people i've had on the show ever because you answer the questions.

you do not do anything else but answer -- i like that. it's called question,/answer. >> it's the downside of being an engineer instead of an attorney, i think. >> thanks so much. maybe that helps. you know how to get to the important parts. thank you, senator martin heinrich of new mexico. in his briefing today, sean spicer, aforementioned, questioned a need for a special prosecutor and effectively said there's nothing more to investigate when it comes to their involvement with russia. here he is. >> should there be a special prosecutor, darrell issa's call for a special prosecutor to look into this? >> my question would be a special prosecutor for what? i think russia's involvement in activity has been investigated up and down so the question becomes at some point, if there's nothing to further investigate, what are you asking people to investigate? chairman nunes spoke very clearly today when asked over and over and over again about all of this and said that he has seen nothing that leads him to believe that there's there. >> joining me, robert costa, national political reporter with the "washington post" and msnbc political analyst.

greg miller covers the intelligence community for the "washington post." right on this story. simon marks is a chief correspondent with "feature story news." i want to go to robert, i'm watching poor sean spicer on the nanny cam basically being watched every minute by the president. the president clearly wants spicer and priebus to tell top intelligence officials to squash this. there's no secrets. he's trying to shut down any interests in his russian relations such as they were. >> not only a message to the media, a message to the congressional republicans. nunes from california certainly a major ally for the white house. he's out in front defending the administration. but the bigger question, chris, what are these senate republicans going to do? senator burr, others on the intelligence committee who are moves forward with an investigation on russia. that the view of the white house has not stopped those investigations from moving forward. >> so it's happening.

let me go to greg. you're right on top of this story, greg. where's it going, this story? what's the word for you? >> well, i think, you know, as robert just alluded to, the big question now is what happens to these investigations? there's been a lot of effort by republicans in the white house to keep these investigations confined to these two committees. and under that sort of control. and the appearance that these chairmen are operating with the white house to some degree makes it harder to keep that contained and fend off that pressure to have an independent investigation that's more bipartisan. >> these -- these select committees on intelligence, so-called select committees, are supposed to be nonpartisan, right, not supposed to be part of the leadership? >> by tradition they're supposed to be very bipartisan and, in fact, have been throughout much of their history. they've become increasingly partisan over the past ten years or so. >> it's hard to say there's nothing there. >> it's impossible. >> explain that. everybody watching this program, programs like it, keep up with news. one of the bits of news we picked up during the campaign, russia had its big fat thumb on the scale against hillary, at least that, we know.

we don't know if they wanted trump. certainly didn't want hillary. >> you can't say there's nothing there if you haven't answered three basic questions. why did you keep national security adviser michael flynn in place in high classified meetings 2 1/2 weeks after you were told he was a national security risk? why haven't you shown the public not just the outside cover of michael cohen's pass court, donald trump's personal lawyer, but the inside pages so people can see where he went and when he went there. and thirdly, if you don't turn over the tax returns, it will be impossible to know whether the trump organization or donald trump personally in any way benefited from the 19.5% of rosneft, russian state oil company which somehow disappeared. >> do we have evidence -- >> it's a question. we don't have -- we don't have -- >> what makes you -- >> we know 19.5% of rosneft was sold to a mystery buyer or was passed on to a mystery recipient. there are questions about that that have to be answered before

you can say there's nothing here to -- >> okay. politico reports an effort to plug the many leaks coming out of the white house. here they are. sean spicer held an emergency meeting last week, "staffers were told to dump their phones on a table for a phone check. to prove they had nothing to hide. spicer also warned the group of more problems in news of the phone checks and meeting about leaks was leaked to the media." well, that didn't work. we're talking about it. robert, trump must be going wacky now because this isn't the way the press handled him in new york city, worried about getting on page six of the "new york post," had business relations and now has people in his white house staff he doesn't trust, doesn't trust his press office, doesn't trust the fbi, doesn't trust the -- anybody, it seems. everybody's circling him as he sees it. how does trump adjust to this? >> it's an impossible task for sean spicer. for the president, they don't recognize, perhaps, is that this whole town, washington, especially those on capitol

hill, republicans and democrats, are talking 24 hours a day, it seems, to the press background, on the record, everyone's talking about what's going on inside of this white house. so you may have a meeting where you put phones on the table in the communications office and try to plug the leaks but this is a bigger ship than that. >> thank you, robert costa, simon marks and greg miller. up next, democrats pick their path forward and the bernie sanders wing falls short again. can the new party chairman, tom perez, unite democrats to defeat trump? this is "hardball." where the action is. (vo) if you have type 2 diabetes, you may know what it's like to deal with high... and low blood sugar. januvia (sitagliptin) is a once-daily pill that, along with diet and exercise, helps lower blood sugar. januvia works when your blood sugar is high and works less when your blood sugar is low, because it works by enhancing your body's own ability to lower blood sugar. plus januvia, by itself, is not likely to cause weight gain or low blood sugar (hypoglycemia). januvia should not be used in patients with type 1 diabetes

or diabetic ketoacidosis. tell your doctor if you have a history of pancreatitis. serious side effects can happen, including pancreatitis which may be severe and lead to death. stop taking januvia and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area which may be pancreatitis. tell your doctor right away and stop taking januvia if you have an allergic reaction that causes swelling of the face, lips, tongue, or throat, or affects your breathing or causes rash or hives. kidney problems sometimes requiring dialysis have been reported. some people may develop severe joint pain. call your doctor if this happens. using januvia with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. to reduce the risk, your doctor may prescribe a lower dose of the sulfonylurea or insulin. your doctor may do blood tests before and during treatment to check your kidneys. if you have kidney problems a lower dose may be prescribed. side effects may include upper respiratory tract infection, stuffy or runny nose, sore throat, and headache. for help lowering your blood sugar talk to your doctor about januvia.

it is my great honor -- it is -- it is now my honor -- it is my honor now to present the gavel of the next chair of the democratic national committee to mr. tom perez.

congratulations. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was outgoing chair donna brazile announcing the new leader of the democratic national committee over the weekend. former labor secretary tom perez, first latino leader of the democratic national committee. the contest for party chair turned into a proxy war you might see between the obama/clinton wing represented by mr. perez and the bernie sanders wing which backed keith ellison. politico reported ed meeks was reportedly threatened by supporters of ellison and sanders with a primary challenge if he backed anyone else. perez, however, had a big hand to play. former president barack obama along with joe biden, quote, called the members, himself, to push for the labor secretary. in a sign of union, he named ellison his deputy.

>> if you came here to support me, wearing a keith t-shirt or any t-shirt, i am asking you to give everything you got to support chairman perez. >> we will all be able to say whether you're sitting here, whether you're sitting outside, or whether you're looking on across america, we will all be able to say the united democratic party led the resistance, ensured this president was a one-term president and elected democrats across this country. >> progressives saw the 2016 election results as an opportunity to move the party further to the left and now the sanders and warren wing, if you will, has been dealt another blow at party control. what will progressives do next? former vice president vermont governor howard dean, msnbc political analyst and find him a fascinating guy to try to figure out. governor, you were rooting for the young mayor, buttigieg, of indiana. i did find him interesting.

has youth lost out just to get that part out of this thing? >> youth hasn't lost out. perez is great, he is a progressive. i would have supported keith if i had a vote once buttigieg was out. the base of the democratic party was in the airports, all over america where the women's march and in these town meetings. and the dnc is completely divorced from all of that. and that's what they've got to rebuild. you can't just do the 50-state strategy anymore. now you got to do a 50-year strategy. this first global generation that's out there that supported barack obama twice and hillary clinton, they're not democrats. vote in presidential elections. they don't vote in the off-year elections. one of the reasons we're in bad shop. tom perez, first of all has to

rebuild the democratic party and reach out own bring people into institutional politics which they don't want to do right now. >> let me ask you, cornell, if you had the slice the pie right now and said the outside, the youth, minorities maybe, have a different vision what the democrat should stand for, the usual people running the party for years, what are the issues? foreign policy. people on the left, against war, how would you describe them? skeptical about military involvement? give me some areas. >> i worked for howard dean before i worked for obama. i think we're making too much of the ideological rift. >> i agree. >> you mean i'm wrong to ask the question? >> i think it's missing a point because there is not -- there is not, you know, 15 cents worth of difference ideologically from a policy standpoint where congressman ellison is and where perez is. the ideological purity test, we're missing the picture.

there's a segment of the left who wants ideological litmus tests but they're missing the bigger picture. as we talk, you know what jeff sessions is doing? he's pulling the u.s. attorneys office out of the texas voter identification. we have our communities under siege. these are the issues. >> okay. i think either you care about voter rights or you don't. >> no. perez is going to fight for voter rights. ellison is going to -- >> i thought you meant a more conservative part of the wing that wasn't in the running here. >> you know, it was the most successful chairman in modern history but -- >> thank you, cornell belcher and governor howard dean. newly minted dnc chair tom perez will be our guest tomorrow night on "hardball," that's 7:00 eastern as we get ready for the president's speech to congress. when we return, let me finish with trump watch. this is "hardball." where the action is.

trump watch, february 27th, 2017. well tomorrow night we're going to see president trump in full. he has the congress, the supreme court, his cabinet and country watching and listening. more importantly, the people out there who voted for him and those who didn't. including those who voted very much against him. well nobody on earth gets this kind of audience in realtime, in primetime. when everyone else stops to pay attention. so it would be good for the country if this event by itself gets him to think about the country the whole country and nothing but. talking at rallies is different than talking to the country and the world. applause lines are good to get people excited to vote for you. it's time for something more. something about what he wants to do and how he wants to get it done. most important, how he intends to build, how he's going to inspire this country as an

american president. in any case we're going to have a live late-night edition of "hardball" tomorrow night following the speech with a lot of reaction. with me, all-star cast, bill maher, michael moore, kathy griffin, rob reiner, nancy giles. an all-star cast. i expect in that group you're looking at now are going to have lots to say. get a good night's sleep tonight and stay up with us tomorrow night for our "hardball" late-night special, lots of attitude in that hour.

tonight on "all in" -- >> mr. trump, do you support a special prosecutor on russia? >> the white house tries to kill investigations before they start. >> i guess my question would be, a special prosecutor for what? >> tonight, congressman adam schiff and dick durbin on the growing bipartisan push. >> i think we all need answers. plus, as the investigators work with the white house -- >> what i've been told is by many folks is that there's nothing there. >> why others are breaking ranks. >> you're going to need to use the special prosecutor's statutes. >> then, new reports of a high-stakes obamacare repeal as the president has an aca epiphany. >> nobody knew that health care could be so complicated. >> a protests at a joint session. we'll look at what democrats may